Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones as they interfere with the quality of the sound transmission of the meeting. I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 163 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies. I welcome the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, and ask him to introduce his officials.

The Waterford Institute of Technology financial statements before the committee today relate to the academic year ending on 31 August 2013. The audit was completed in June of this year. Delays in the production of audited financial statements have also occurred in previous years, related in part to a complex set of issues affecting the institute, which the committee has previously examined. Unusually among the institutes of technology, Waterford Institute of Technology set up a number of companies in the 1990s to provide a range of ancillary services such as student accommodation, catering, sporting and recreation activities and retail outlets. These companies are grouped as Diverse Campus Services Limited. The scale of operation of the companies expanded over time and they undertook a number of major capital projects. Diverse Campus Services receives substantial block funding each year from the institute. A note to the institute’s financial statements gives summary information about the companies’ operations, but their results are not consolidated with those of the institute. Based on the nature and pattern of interaction between the institute and the companies, we concluded they are part of the normal services typically provided on the campuses of third level institutions and they should be included in consolidated accounts produced by the institute.

In November 2012, the Minister for Education and Skills commissioned Mr. Dermot Quigley to undertake a statutory inspection to review the relationship between the institute and the companies. His report was published in July 2013. He recommended that the companies should be restructured as subsidiaries of the institute and that the institute should then produce consolidated financial statements for the group. This process has been ongoing. The income and expenditure account shows the institute had income of €84.7 million in 2012-13. Expenditure for the year amounted to just under €85 million, including a transfer of €3.3 million to Diverse Campus Services. This left the institute with an operating deficit of approximately €300,000 for the year. Note 26 to the financial statements acknowledges that the institute has incurred operating deficits for three consecutive years and discloses the rationale for the governing body’s belief that it is appropriate to prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis. I have drawn attention to this note in the audit certificate.

The audit certificate also draws attention to three disclosures about governance issues included in the statement on internal control, relating to non-compliance by the institute with the code of governance of Irish institutes of technology. First, the governing body did not carry out a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the system of internal controls in respect of the year of accounts, as it is required to do. Second, the institute’s audit committee did not issue an annual report to the governing body until September 2014 due to the committee’s concerns about the timely provision to it of key information. Finally, there were four areas of expenditure with a total value of €524,000 where public procurement rules were not complied with. As a consequence of delays experienced on the 2012-13 audit, we were unable to commence fieldwork in respect of the 2013-14 financial statements until July of this year. The institute is carrying out some additional analysis in relation to issues raised during the audit and has indicated that it expects to respond to the audit queries early in 2016. Assuming we are satisfied with the responses, I hope the financial statements can be certified before Easter. I expect they will reflect full consolidation of the Diverse Campus Services companies.

The consolidated income and expenditure account for Cork Institute of Technology for the 2013-14 year shows an operating deficit of €126,000 for the year ended 31 August 2014. This compares to a surplus of over €1.4 million in the previous year. The institute’s income for the 2013-14 financial year was €98.6 million. The institute incurred expenditure of €98.7 million in the year, with staff costs accounting for €64.2 million or 65% of the total. I issued a clear audit opinion in relation to the 2013-14 financial statements. In March 2014, my office received anonymous correspondence containing a large number of allegations in regard to Cork Institute of Technology. Similar correspondence was received by the Committee of Public Accounts at that time. In view of the breadth of the allegations, my office sent a copy of the correspondence to the chairman of the governing body of Cork Institute of Technology, rather than to the president, who is the accountable person. We sent copies of the correspondence to the president of the institute, the Department of Education and Skills and the Higher Education Authority. We asked to be kept informed about the actions proposed to investigate the allegations. Following a tender process, the institute appointed KPMG in October 2014 to investigate the allegations. We were informed by the institute in December 2014 that the investigation had been completed and that a full detailed report would issue in due course.

On 22 December 2014, my office received additional correspondence, apparently from the same anonymous source. This contained further allegations and repeated some of the allegations raised in the March 2014 correspondence. We sent a copy of the new correspondence to Cork Institute of Technology, the Department and the Higher Education Authority. On 2 April 2015, we received a letter from the chairman of the institute’s governing body indicating that the audit committee had finalised its review of the allegations made in the anonymous correspondence and of KPMG’s findings from its investigations. The letter enclosed a copy of KPMG’s report. KPMG counted a total of 196 allegations made in the two sets of correspondence. It concluded that 66 allegations were repetition of other allegations, 33 allegations did not contain sufficient information to allow investigation and the remaining 97 allegations had been adequately addressed by explanations and documentary evidence provided by the institute. KPMG reported that it had found no evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the allegations but it did identify a small number of control improvement opportunities in regard to three of them.

While carrying out the audit of Cork Institute of Technology’s 2013-14 financial statements, my office assessed the appropriateness of the institute’s response to the allegations made and reviewed KPMG's report and findings. We concluded that the institute's response to the allegations was prompt. We were satisfied that the investigation carried out by KPMG was appropriate and adequate. We saw no reason to disagree with the conclusions it reached. We concluded that the control weaknesses identified by KPMG in its review of three of the allegations were in the nature of management point letters, which we are following up during the audit of the 2014-15 financial statements. I concluded that there was no requirement for me to report formally to Dáil Éireann in regard to the issues raised in the anonymous correspondence.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to make this statement concerning the 2013 financial statements of Waterford Institute of Technology and the 2014 financial statements of Cork Institute of Technology. I have already forwarded some advance briefing to the committee and will therefore keep this opening statement short. I assure the committee that the governance and accountability of the higher education institutions is an important matter for the Department and the Higher Education Authority, HEA. The Department, with the co-operation of the HEA, is committed to ensuring appropriate and efficient structures are in place to allow for a system of good accountability in the sector. I have set out in the background note the measures under way to enhance the system in place.

I would like to mention in particular, the Department’s intention, in conjunction with the HEA, to commence a series of corporate governance compliance reviews utilising a centralised procurement framework to deliver reviews which will evaluate the effectiveness of governance in organisations against stated policy, best practice, national and international standards. The review process may focus on a specific aspect or area of governance or may be broader in scope. The Department has recently agreed with the HEA that the first rolling review, so-called, of governance compliance will be on procurement and will look at practices across the third level sector. The terms of reference have been finalised, with the review expected to be undertaken in the first quarter of 2016.

On Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, as the committee is aware, the Minister took the exceptional step to initiate a statutory inspection into the relationship between Waterford Institute of Technology and companies providing campus services to it in November 2012. The HEA had been liaising with WIT since 2011 in an effort to regularise the relationship between the institute and the companies concerned. The process was quite complex, especially given the financial arrangements in place and the imminent liabilities relating to the Manor Village student accommodation development and the Carriganore complex.

Mr. Quigley provided his report to the Minister in June 2013. He concluded that while the arrangements were well motivated, they were not appropriate and he recommended a reactivation of the process to acquire and restructure the companies as full subsidiaries of the institute. He also recommended that the institute proceed with a buy-out of the Manor Village development and the completion of the Carriganore sports complex. A full overview of the report’s recommendations has been provided to the committee in briefing material. The Department would like to acknowledge the positive engagement shown by both the institute and the companies during this inspection process, and the acceptance of and the speedy implementation of Mr. Quigley’s recommendations. This consolidation process is now complete and the Department is arranging for Mr. Quigley to review current arrangements with a view to reporting to the Minister in the spring.

I am conscious that the committee has taken a particular interest in the current status of the Carriganore sports complex in WIT. As the committee is aware, the project commenced in January 2012, and significant work was completed on it during the year. In parallel, the institute was working towards a regularisation of its relationship with the companies. As the institute was not in a position to access borrowings, other sources of finance were put in place to bring the development to a safe and protected state in early 2013. As noted by Mr. Quigley, this resulted in “major financial headaches from both DCS and WIT”. To protect the investment already made, Mr. Quigley recommended the completion of the Carriganore development and that moneys should be made available to the institute, either through a borrowing facility or Department funding, to do this. In response, the Department initially committed €2.5 million to provide for the completion of the project. This was communicated to the committee previously. There has been an extensive interaction between the Department and WIT since then in an effort to assist WIT in ensuring a final resolution of the issues which were the subject of Mr. Quigley’s report. This engagement has been intensified in recent months as the tender competition for the project drew to a close and complete clarity was finally brought to the costs involved.

In that context, my officials wrote to WIT on 8 October seeking some final documentation on 27 November last to confirm our proposal to provide an additional €2.1 million to enable the completion of the sports complex and to finalise the implementation of the recommendations set out by Mr. Quigley in his report. Following WIT’s acceptance of the proposal, the Minister announced the additional funding on 1 December. The funding brings the Department’s total outlay towards both the purchase of the Manor Village student accommodation development and the completion of the sports complex to €12.1 million. This positive engagement will culminate in the completion of a valuable project for Waterford IT. Cognisant of the benefits to all stakeholders involved in the Carriganore sports complex and the financial situation of the institute, the complex will become a fully functional facility which will benefit the staff and students of WIT as well as the wider local community.

On the anonymous correspondence on a number of issues in Cork Institute of Technology, the committee is aware that KPMG has undertaken a review of the allegations. The report on the first set of allegations involved a review of the 175 allegations identified within the anonymous correspondence. KPMG also provided a detailed report on the 21 allegations contained in the second anonymous letter. Both consultant's reports have been submitted to the HEA and they have found no evidence to support the main thrust of the allegations. The HEA followed up with CIT in respect of some minor issues that arose during the review and these matters have since been addressed. The HEA has confirmed to the Department that, based on the KPMG reports and supporting information supplied by CIT, it is satisfied with the process implemented by CIT in investigating the allegations. I am happy to answer questions from the committee.

I will focus on two issues, the Carriganore project in Waterford Institute of Technology and the anonymous allegations relating to Cork Institute of Technology. In regard to Waterford Institute of Technology, the HEA notes Mr. Eugene McKenna’s correspondence to the committee on 10 October 2015. The HEA was aware of the potential consequences of the institute not proceeding with the Carriganore project, but there was no legitimate funding route available to allow the project to continue. WIT has no power to borrow either directly or through letters of comfort or guarantee. The proposal from DCS was therefore ultra vires the institute. There are no circumstances whatsoever in which the HEA could condone such actions.

In July 2012, the project was over 60% complete, with works to the value of €6.5 million completed on site. There were, however, no funds available to progress the project without borrowings, and the development committee was forced to terminate the contract. The HEA was aware that it is not good practice to terminate the employment of a contractor prior to the completion of a contract. Unfortunately, no other options existed as the project had not been procured in accordance with public procurement guidelines or the capital works management framework, and a moratorium on new capital projects in the higher education sector was introduced in November 2011 which prevented any capital grants being issued to support completion.

The HEA raised concerns regarding the relationship between the institute, the development committee and its associated subsidiary companies as far back as January 2011. The governing body was also known to be considering the relationship. On 14 October 2011, the HEA wrote to Mr. Tony McFeely, then acting president, and sought details of outcomes of discussions at governing body level and requested that the institute put in place a team of appropriately qualified personnel to examine these and related issues and report back to the governing body.

While this examination was progressing, the acting president of WIT, Mr. Tony McFeely, provided a so-called letter of comfort to the development committee regarding the funding of phase 3 at Carriganore. A report on the governance relationships did not issue until June 2012 and the governing body adopted the report and approved the implementation of the preferred option “to revise the structure of the development committee and Campus Services and make them subsidiary undertakings of WIT under new management arrangements”. Numerous challenges faced the institute regarding the consolidation and transfer of significant debts and future liabilities onto its balance sheet.

On 13 November 2012, the Minister for Education and Skills appointed Mr. Dermot Quigley as inspector to carry out, pursuant to section 20 of the Institutes of Technology Acts 1992 to 2006, a statutory inspection of companies providing a range of services in WIT. The report produced confirmed the relationships between WIT, DCS and the subsidiary companies were inappropriate. Fundamentally, the institute was wrong in providing letters of comfort to support borrowings for the Carriganore development.

In terms of Cork Institute of Technology, as the committee is aware, in March 2014 the Comptroller and Auditor General received anonymous correspondence containing a significant number of allegations in respect of CIT. The correspondence was subsequently forwarded to both CIT and the HEA. In late December 2014, a further set of anonymous allegations relating to CIT was received. CIT commissioned an independent firm of auditors, KPMG, to review and report on both sets of allegations. The HEA notes that KPMG carried out a detailed and thorough investigation of these allegations and that only minor matters of clarification were required. The HEA further notes that CIT’s audit committee was satisfied that the matters had been diligently and appropriately investigated.

During the review process the HEA remained in close contact with CIT. It also had the opportunity to review the allegations as well as the KPMG findings and has itself sought additional information or clarification as required from CIT.

This information was provided to the HEA in a comprehensive and timely manner. The HEA is satisfied that a detailed and thorough investigation was carried out by CIT and its auditors, with the auditors identifying no significant issues arising.

In circumstances such as these, it is vital that higher education institutions have processes in place to carry out comprehensive and independent investigations. This is because it is institutions and, in particular, their governing bodies that are primarily responsible for the management and operation of their internal affairs. In the context of dealing with specific allegations, institutions are expected to comply with the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and have procedures in place whereby employees may in confidence raise any concern about possible irregularities in financial, operational or other matters. Indeed, confirmation that such procedures are in place is now a requirement of annual governance reporting arrangements to the HEA. The 2014 Act also provides for disclosures relating to higher education matters to be made to me in my position as chief executive of the HEA.

I welcome this opportunity to update the committee regarding matters raised at previous meetings and issues reported in the financial statement of the institute for the year ending 31 August 2013. The briefing document supplied to the committee last week presents a detailed response to the various matters reported in the 2013 financial statements.

I propose in my opening statement to concentrate on two major issues that have been the subject of considerable comment at recent meetings of the committee. These are progress in respect of the relationship between Waterford Institute of Technology and Diverse Campus Services Limited, DCS, including on the implementation of the recommendations of the Quigley report, and the status of the Carriganore sports campus development. I will make particular reference to the contents of three separate but related reports, those being, Special Report No. 78 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Matters Arising out of Educational Audits, which was issued in February 2012; the Grant Thornton report published in June 2012 on behalf of the governing body of the institute; and the Quigley report, which was issued in June 2013 to the Minister for Education and Skills. These reports focused on the relationship between WIT and DCS, the company providing canteen and other services on campus.

Briefly, report No. 78 reads, "The patterns of interaction between WIT and a range of companies that provide services (canteen, residences, recreation facilities, retail outlet and sports hall) on campus suggest that the related activities are part of the normal services typically provided on the campuses of third level institutions and that they should be included in consolidated accounts produced by the Institute." WIT accepted and agreed with this recommendation. Indeed, at the time of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, WIT's governing body had already commenced a review of WIT and DCS's relationship and commissioned a report from Grant Thornton. The Grant Thornton report was presented to the governing body in June 2012 and recommended that DCS and its subsidiary companies should be restructured under new management as subsidiary companies of WIT. The institute also accepted the recommendations included in the above reports and set about incorporating the DCS companies within WIT and consolidating their accounts within the WIT accounts.

This was overtaken by the appointment in November 2012 of Mr. Dermot Quigley by the Minister for Education and Skills as an inspector under section 20 of the Institutes of Technology Acts to review the relationship between WIT and these companies. The institute welcomed Mr. Quigley's recommendations, which were published in June 2013. His report points to aspects of the relationship between WIT and DCS that could be considered "inappropriate" in so far as they "had adverse effects on governance at the Institute and on the management of its financial affairs".

I am pleased to report that the institute has addressed the key issues raised in Special Report No. 78. The institute has also implemented the recommendations of the Quigley report and full details of their implementation are contained in the briefing documentation supplied to the committee. Specifically, the governance and internal control environments in the DCS group have been addressed. The DCS board has been reconfigured with appointments of representatives from the governing body, institute staff and an external chair. The code of governance for the institutes of technology has been implemented by DCS as far as is practical. These new structures reinforce the alignment of the vision and purpose of the DCS companies with the institutional strategy and the needs of the student community. The process of ensuring that alignment into the future is ongoing. The consolidation of the financial accounts of DCS and WIT has been completed within the 2014 financial statements, which are under audit, as mentioned in the briefing documentation.

I will turn my attention to the status of the Carriganore sports complex development. The key factors that led to the failure to complete the complex were the overdependence of DCS on financial support from WIT, DCS's increasing loan repayments and falling revenue, and the impact of the economic downturn on the institute's financial position. It would have been logical for DCS and WIT to re-evaluate the economic viability of phase 3 of Carriganore, in particular given that phases 1 and 2 entailed an integrated building that did not require phase 3. The sensible conclusion would have been not to have proceeded with phase 3 of the sports complex. This point was noted by Mr. Quigley, who stated it was unfortunate that a decision was made to continue with this phase.

The commencement of phase 3 created major pressure on the institute’s resources. Notwithstanding its decreasing financial resources, the institute made every effort to support the continued development of Carriganore, specifically through the transfer of €6.1 million from the institute to DCS during 2012. By the end of 2012, however, WIT and DCS did not have access to additional financial resources to invest in the sports campus. In addition, WIT's end-of-year accounts were showing a financial deficit. The institute was forced to terminate works on the complex and secure an unfinished building. This resulted in a cost for exiting the project and inevitably a cost for restarting the project at a later stage.

Following the Quigley report, the Department of Education and Skills made some funds available to the institute. These were sufficient to pay the outstanding costs for the Manor Village student accommodation complex, which was another DCS project. However, the residue was not sufficient to cover the cost of reopening and completing phase 3 of Carriganore.

I was appointed president in April 2015. Since then, I have focused on ensuring sufficient funds are available to complete and open the sports complex. Following further engagement with the Department of Education and Skills, sufficient funds have been made available to complete the building. I am pleased that a sustainable repayment schedule for all moneys due to the Department is in place. I am also engaging with the HEA in developing a three-year strategy to restore the institute's financial independence on an ongoing sustainable basis and to focus our resources on the continued education and economic development of the south east.

Regarding the consolidation of companies and associated matters, the institute has responded fully to the concerns raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General in Special Report No. 78 and has implemented the majority of the recommendations of the Quigley report. The future strategic development of DCS is aligned with the institute's strategic priorities. The company's financial and governance structures are also aligned with best practice. The role of the governing body from a governance, oversight and reporting perspective in respect of the subsidiaries is clear. All projects now have a robust and sustainable financial plan in place that will realise significant assets for the institute, the region of Waterford and the State.

I thank the committee for its invitation to attend this meeting on the financial statements of Cork Institute of Technology for 2014. CIT is one of the largest, most progressive and most successful institutes of technology in the country, with 11,000 higher education students, approximately 3,000 craft and junior music students and a staff of 1,400. It operates on four major sites in Cork city and county. CIT is institute of technology of the year for 2016, our third time in the past decade, and in partnership with IT Tralee, it has successfully completed three of the four stages of technological university designation.

The quality of CIT's education programmes and research are overseen by Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, and its governance is provided by its governing body and through its three committees, namely, audit, finance and strategic development.

It operates under the Institutes of Technology Acts 1992 to 2006 and the Higher Education Authority has a regulatory oversight of CIT. Higher education in Ireland has been operating in a challenging financial environment since 2008 with a significant increase in higher education student numbers, reduced staff numbers and reduced State funding. Even though CIT continued to be successful in this period, it is not immune to these financial challenges, as may be seen in our 2014 financial statements. We anticipate no immediate improvement in our financial situation in 2015 with a continuing reduction in State funding, increasing pay costs and a continuing need to dip into our relatively small reserves for essential maintenance and health and safety works.

The results of the Comptroller and Auditor General audit in 2014 complements the result of our internal audit reports. Any issues raised in these audit reports are carefully considered by the governing body, its audit committee and the executive. They are then followed up and corrected. Controls are strengthened and they are monitored by the audit committee. As in any institution, mistakes are made, but they are corrected. Overall, we have a culture of improvement.

It is against this background of a progressive and well-governed higher education institution that one should set the anonymous letter allegations received by CIT from the Comptroller and Auditor General in mid-May 2014 and on Christmas Eve 2014.

In the first anonymous letter a total of 175 allegations were made. Many of these were grossly defamatory on the face of it. The anonymous letter was referred by the chairman of the governing body to the audit committee, which was authorised by the governing body to obtain independent legal advice. Based on this advice and with the agreement of the governing body, the audit committee, via the independent legal advisers, Arthur Cox, tendered for and engaged KPMG to carry out an independent review of the allegations. In the second anonymous letter a further 21 allegations were made. Again, many of these appear to be grossly defamatory and all were considered by the audit committee of CIT. The audit committee engaged KPMG to carry out a further independent review. I will set out a summary of the outcome of the KPMG independent review. Of a total of 196 allegations a total of 35 were deemed to have insufficient evidence to allow further review, 102 were deemed to require no further action because the allegations had been adequately addressed by the institute and 59 were deemed repetitious to other allegations and required no further action.

The governing body received updates from the audit committee during the process. A final report issued from the audit committee and was considered by the governing body at its meeting of 26 March 2015. It concluded that after two intensive external investigations all individuals and agencies identified within the letters had carried out their professional duties highly diligently and with total integrity. The governing body concluded that no further response or action was required from the institute's executive. A full copy of the audit committee's final report to the governing body and the KPMG reports have been provided to the HEA, the Department of Education and Skills and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The chair of the governing body has also provided the HEA with a full written account of the processes undertaken to address the matter.

CIT notes the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the committee in respect of the redacted KPMG report. CIT wishes to state that no slight to the committee was intended at any stage. CIT also respectfully notes that the committee has not made a direct request of CIT for the KPMG report.

CIT has a duty of care to protect the reputation of the institute, its employees and other organisations identified in the anonymous letters. It has received legal advice on its obligations. Given the concerns over the high level of personal information and entirely unfounded nature of the allegations contained in these reports CIT decided that all references to individuals, titles or organisations be redacted. Any other detail of a confidential or sensitive nature that may have led to damage to the individuals or organisations or that may have served to identify same were also redacted. The purpose of the provision of the redacted version of the reports was to provide documentary evidence that a full, comprehensive and independent investigation had been undertaken while also protecting the identities and reputations of those falsely accused.

The direct cost of the legal advice and investigation has amounted to some €65,000, with a significant internal cost as well. In recent days, the committee has requested other documentation relating to the KPMG reports as well as the cost of the due diligence exercise carried out for our Munster technological university stage 2 application. These have been supplied. The committee has also requested the minutes of the audit committee of the governing body since 2010 and the minutes of the CIT safety committee since 2010. These have also been supplied. As requested, we have also supplied a note recently relating to CIT cleaning staff and their sick pay. We remain at the disposal of the committee to answer any questions that members may have on these and other matters. Thank you, Chairman.

I will start with Dr. Murphy. He has given a considerable account around these allegations made anonymously and the process pursuant to them. We have more correspondence. I am unsure whether Dr. Murphy is aware of it. It relates to December of this year, so it is current. It would not be fair to go through the details of it with him now and I have no wish to bounce him in that way. However, a thought occurs to me. How does Dr. Murphy account for this rash of allegations? I am not asking him to comment on the outcome of the independent inquiry. However, questions have to be asked about this pattern of allegations. Is there a cultural problem in the institute? Is there a management problem in the institute? Is it simply disgruntled individuals? These questions occur to me notwithstanding Dr. Murphy's account of the procedure of investigation. Will Dr. Murphy comment on this?

The Comptroller and Auditor General commented on the two anonymous letters and suggested they would seem to be by the same author. There was a certain repetition in style that would lead one to that conclusion. I have no knowledge of a third letter of allegation.

Deputy McDonald referred to the culture within the institute. Like most public bodies nowadays and following the passage into legislation of the Protected Disclosures Act, we have a comprehensive protected disclosure policy which allows any individual to raise matters, either internally or externally, as they deem appropriate. Other than that, we are into the realm of speculation on the motive behind this individual or individuals.

I appreciate that CIT has and is obliged to have procedures for protected disclosures. However, I am asking a slightly different question. We need to get to the bottom of why there is a repeat pattern in allegations. I have correspondence from this month. I had assumed that it had come to the committee, but it may only have come to me. Other members seem to have been in receipt of it as well. Is that correct?

In any event, we will not delve into the detail of it. I am not asking Dr. Murphy about the procedural issue; I am asking about the cultural issue. Are there individuals who feel alienated from management? Is there a bad atmosphere in the institute?

In that sense it has not arisen because we have had no protected disclosures. We have put in place a provision for any member of staff or the public if they want to raise an issue to be able to raise an issue.

Can I, respectfully, suggest that the institute, as a team and Dr. Murphy as the leader, might give some thought as to why the institute has had no protected disclosures yet there has been a rash of allegations made outside of orthodox channels? That is something Dr. Murphy should think about and examine in respect of his organisation. I am saying that to be helpful.

I thank Dr. Murphy. I wish to ask Mr. Ó Foghlú about the ongoing issue of public procurement. In his first rolling review he proposes to deal with the issue of procurement which is welcome but quite late in the day. Procurement issues arise here constantly more in breach than honouring the guidelines.

In respect of Waterford Institute of Technology, and I note that Professor Donnelly talked about the WIT's end of year accounts which struck me as a nice turn of phrase. It was mentioned that €524,000 of public procurement was transacted outside of the rules. Is that the figure Professor Donnelly gave us?

Certainly, Deputy. We are concerned at a number of the procurement practices. I suppose they fit within the overall governance practices that we have. The primary responsibility on governance rests with the higher education institution in question. They have to put in place the appropriate procedures under the governance arrangements that are in place. An updated set of governance arrangements have been put in place by the HEA with them. They are supposed to go through an internal system of financial control-review which is signed off by the audit committee and governing body and then the Chair, in person, reports to the Higher Education Authority. Quite clearly, arising from that, there are a number of difficulties emerging. It is not all of the procurement across the board in the institutions but there are instances in each of the institutions and there are different sorts of instances in each of the institutions.

There are couple of red line issues which I know the committee has discussed and we are very concerned about. It is where an institution has decided not to implement the guidelines put in place by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. In particular, that has arisen with two institutions in the recent past and both institutions have been contacted. We, obviously, follow up with the HEA and the HEA follows up directly with the institutions. The HEA has had assurances from both institutions that they will implement the procedures in full.

There were different issues with each of them. Those have been identified and they have indicated a willingness to address it.

There are different reasons for procurement practices not having been implemented. For example, there can be a need to roll over procurement and a gap in the availability of a service if that is not identified early enough. This is not satisfactory and has to be addressed. There can be waiting involved. We have many new central procurement arrangements, which are beginning to work well with the Office of Government Procurement, which the Accounting Officer of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has discussed with the committee. In this context, the education sector is taking the lead in a number of areas. Implementation can take a while for the new frameworks to be put in place in the structures. Sometimes, an institution must roll over a contract and wait. That is more understandable, but it would also be better were it not to be the case. It has taken place as we have worked to put in place a new system. In other instances, institutes have not appropriately tendered. That is not acceptable.

Yes, that is the aim. When we examined the governance framework, we and the HEA identified the issues of institutions signing off and the cascade upwards were not satisfactory in ensuring compliance with, among other aspects, procurement. We worked with the Comptroller and Auditor General to put a better system in place for conveying information, including regular meetings with the HEA, so that we are not waiting for the accounts. When the Comptroller and Auditor General learns of something, the HEA can pick up on it and engage. Even with that, we believed that we needed something else. We have identified the potential for rolling reviews in terms of governance, with procurement as the first priority. The aim is that the rolling review will identify issues that arise and give institutions the opportunity to respond and ensure that they have the new arrangements in place. It is another mechanism to help ensure that they comply fully.

I am sure that I speak for all committee members when I say that we will anticipate this process and assume that Mr. Ó Foghlú will make it very clear to the institutions concerned. Issues have arisen at Maynooth University, Athlone Institute of Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology, Waterford Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown, Tallaght, St. Patrick's in Drumcondra, Mary Immaculate College and National College of Art and Design, NCAD. This problem is widespread in the sector. I am sure that Mr. Ó Foghlú is not attempting to try to explain it away, as there clearly can be no explaining away. The guidelines are fairly clear cut and the expectations on the system need to be understood by each of the institutions. I believe that we agree on this.

There were three main areas. One was cleaning services, which accounted for €277,000. That contract expired in June 2012 and was not re-tendered until June 2013. A second area was patent services and legal services, accounting for €51,000 and €136,500, respectively. Developments were ongoing regarding a national tender process for the sector and we were awaiting its completion. Effectively, we used the companies that we used previously. The third area related to international students, in particular those from China. This was a new area for us and we did not have much experience with using student recruitment specialists in China. That was not unique to WIT, since engaging in China to attract students was a new experience for the whole sector.

Yes. I do not propose that we rehash every detail of that because we have given it extensive consideration previously. Is Professor Donnelly familiar with a report from Waterford Institute of Technology to the Higher Education Authority dated 3 June 2011?

To the best of my knowledge, this report was not referred to or brought to the attention of the committee. I am open to correction but having trawled the records, I do not believe that is the case. Will Professor Donnelly or Mr. Boland offer an explanation as to why the report was not brought to the committee's attention. I will cut to the chase and explain the reason it interests me. There is no doubt that the level of expenditure and the manner of accounting for it using the president's office as a cost centre was hair-raising. When we debated these matters the view was that the Professor Donnelly's predecessor, the former president, had acted extravagantly. To some extent, that holds true to this day. I will not pre-empt that but I note the report states that at no stage has it been suggested that any expenditure incurred in the president's office was for purposes other than that of the institute. I am zoning in on that statement. The tone of it moderates the position as regards Professor Donnelly's predecessor. While it does not change the position entirely, it certainly moderates it as regards the former president's personal interest or lack thereof. Certainly, there was no suggestion of personal gain. Having said all of that, why was this report not given to the committee?

It is to the Higher Education Authority. In fact, it was prepared at Mr. Boland's request. It states that it was prepared in response to a request from the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, Mr. Tom Boland, and is dated 17 May 2011.

It does not help me remember exactly what the report is or why and in what circumstances it was not available to the committee. I genuinely do not know as I sit here this morning but I can find out very quickly for the Deputy. I do not know at the moment but I can comment on some of the content if the Deputy wishes.

I do not have all the background papers with me this morning. However, there was a report referred to in my notes which accompanied the Deloitte report, Deloitte 1, and it was given by Waterford Institute of Technology to the Higher Education Authority on 3 June 2011. That documentation was provided to this committee.

I can draw attention to the special report which was completed in February 2012. At paragraph 2.31, it states:

WIT reported to the HEA on 3 June 2011, drawing on the consultant’s report it had commissioned. A further report has been commissioned by WIT to examine expenses incurred by the President's office in the last two years in more detail. The HEA stated that it will continue to liaise with WIT in relation to the outcome of this report and to ensure that appropriate processes and procedures are in place and being adhered to.

At the first meeting where the special report was discussed, the Deloitte analysis was certainly discussed because I remember references to specific parts of it.

I want to be a bit circumspect because many of the issues around the issue of expenses are the subject of cross-litigation between the institute and so on. With regard to the piece the Deputy read out, I do not think there has ever been any suggestion of self-enrichment by anybody in relation to these expenses. It is much more a question of extreme extravagance, rather than personal gain, if I could put it like that.

Again, I would have to advise that said meeting, along with a number of other issues, is part of the High Court proceedings that Professor Byrne has initiated against the institute. If I recall correctly, while I do not think I have sworn an affidavit, I have certainly given information to lawyers in respect of that meeting so I am not going to comment on it for that reason.

I am not going to comment on the specific meeting. The Deputy is not going to get me into that space. I cannot comment because it is sub judice. However, on the general issue, the HEA and the chief executive have no function in relation to the appointment or dismissal of presidents of institutes - none.

My concern was for the reputation of Waterford, given all the other things that were happening. I had a fairly lengthy meeting with the then president and he was adamant - I had no way of knowing otherwise - that he had no case to answer and that all of the expenditure was entirely appropriate. That is the basis on which we left our conversation.

Yes, there is no minute of the meeting on my part. I do not know whether or not Professor Byrne recorded it. I do not think so. The Chairman is taking me into a position where I have not briefed myself recently but I do not think so, other than a note I have given to lawyers in respect of that meeting.

I am looking at the article now. It reported how Professor Byrne was on the on the back foot and how the then Minister for Education, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, and the then Department Secretary General, Ms Brigid McManus, were briefed on the situation. In their judgment, Professor Byrne had to go. The article says:

Said one senior figure: “The idea of Byrne or his crew being chauffeured back and forth to Dublin really sticks in the craw.’’

The problem was that neither the Department nor the Higher Education Authority could interfere in the appointments process. But the WIT board was left in no doubt about what the Minister wanted.

On Wednesday of last week , Byrne was asked to fall on his sword during a meeting with a senior education official.

While Mr. Boland says that everything is sub judiceand that he does not want to discuss the meeting or any aspect or the particulars of it, he is well able to mention at this meeting the extreme extravagance involved. Mr. Boland has made a very pointed statement regarding Professor Byrne but will not elaborate beyond that. He has just said it and I have written it down. I believe that was a mistake - if one is going to say nothing then say nothing. Mr. Boland has actually coloured the situation by repeating that observation. That is just a point.

-----it will probably end up in court and will be dealt with there. I have my own opinion on who will be successful in this. However, as the facts leak out about Professor Byrne and how he was dealt with, it is becoming more troubling. I am not the only member of this committee who is forming the same opinion. I have raised the matter previously and, on a personal level, I believe Professor Byrne was badly dealt with. Ultimately, all the issues which were lumped together that came about within the Waterford Institute of Technology were dumped on his doorstep and it was unfair. He became the scapegoat for a lot of things that went wrong at WIT and that was extremely unfair. If one looks at the documentation and the history of the situation, once can see that Professor Byrne did a lot of good for the institute and that has been forgotten. There are questions to be answered regarding how the HEA dealt with him. The court will probably determine on that but I am not the only member of this committee who has examined this matter and formed that opinion.

I thank Deputy Deasy. I wish to let Mr. Boland know, sub judiceor not, that Professor Kieran Byrne was in contact with me and he is quite categoric that at the meeting in question Mr. Boland looked for his head. Professor Byrne is happy for me to place that on public record. I was not at the meeting, Mr. Boland was there and emphatically denies this account. What was the nature of Mr. Boland's conversations around this? Did he have a conversation with the Minister of the day regarding WIT in general and about Professor Kieran Byrne in particular?

I can be very specific in my recollection. I have no recollection at all and I do not believe any discussion took place between the Minister and me. I am not sure if I discussed it with the then Secretary General of the Department but it would not be uncommon if I had not. It is far more likely I would have discussed it with the assistant secretary.

I can only assure the committee that I am not being disingenuous. I do not remember exactly who I would have spoken with. I do not want to go into the details of my meeting with Professor Byrne because I believe it is sub judice. That is as much help as I can be today.

I did not ask that. Would it be a resigning matter for the head of the HEA if he or she had, without authorisation and acting entirely outside of his or her powers, sought the resignation of Professor Kieran Byrne at that meeting?

Possibly, but it is not for me to make that decision. That is a disciplinary matter which would have to be dealt with by the board of the HEA. It would be quite inappropriate for me to ask for that resignation.

The report to which Deputy McDonald refers, and which was prepared in response to a request from the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, Mr. Tom Boland, is dated 17 May 2011. Does Mr. Boland recall making that request?

No I do not remember receiving the report. With respect, Chairman, these are matters of detail that happened four years ago. As far as they are on the record, they happened. I accept that they happened.

Information has been placed on the record of this committee to which this also refers but which was not put before us. Mr. Boland himself referred to it on 4 October 2012 when he outlined what he asked of WIT on 17 May 2011.

To go back to a comment made by Deputy Deasy regarding Mr. Byrne, the report stated, “At no stage has Deloitte or the governing body suggested any expenditure incurred in the president’s office was for the purposes other than that of the institute”. There are significant findings in this report, relative to facts and figures, which, had they been placed before the committee after the request for the 2011 report, may have caused us to think differently about events and expenditure.

Yes, it is. However, this is a report Mr. Boland requested from Waterford Institute of Technology regarding the expenditure incurred by the office of the president. If Mr. Boland requested the report - I understand it was some years ago - it did have an impact on how all of these matters were viewed. If Mr. Boland then received the report, what actually happened with it within the Higher Education Authority?

Okay. I will have to check into that. We have not, in fact, concluded that we did not make it available. Deputy McDonald has done her research. We will have to find out. I promise we will give the committee the full information. As of now, however, I do not know what the report was for and I do not know whether we made it available to the committee.

I know I had an exchange with the Comptroller and Auditor General about audit committees and the role of the Higher Education Authority on the previous occasion. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General’s jurisdiction or remit cover a review of what was reported and what was not reported by an audit committees to the Higher Education Authority and how they all acted?

The specific question is ultimately about responsibility and who acted at the time. The Comptroller and Auditor General has heard the discussion going on. Much of the blame has been laid at one particular location. There are audit committees in all of these institutes. The suggestion is that, in many respects, they may not have carried out their functions and reported to the Higher Education Authority and vice versa. Is this something the Comptroller and Auditor General could examine?

I do not think I would be in a position now to look at how they acted in 2011. I only have powers to carry out an audit or a value for money examination. The focus of work I would do now would be regarding what is happening now or what happened in the recent past. This is a hypothetical rather than in relation to Waterford Institute of Technology. If we were to find an audit committee in a current year we were examining was not active or was producing poor quality recommendations to the college, we might look back to see if there was a pattern of that or when it had commenced. It would always be grounded in what was happening currently in the governance of the organisation.

Okay. I understand from where the Comptroller and Auditor General is coming. I might return to this at another time.

I thank Dr. Murphy and Professor Donnelly for attending. Mr. Séan Ó Foghlú and Mr. Tom Boland referred to the sports campus and Waterford Institute of Technology. Is it the case that the contract issues were dealt with yesterday and this work will recommence next week?

In his opening statement, the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the subsidiaries formed with regard to the sports campus at Waterford Institute of Technology. Is it the case there is an improvement and we are heading towards finalising this issue?

Yes. I have talked about other third level institutes and the importance of consolidation. Over several years, many of the third level institutions have established subsidiaries to carry out particular functions. It is a perfectly reasonable approach to take to the business. However, it is important that if there are assets, liabilities or transactions, they would be consolidated. Accordingly, when the financial statements are presented, one gets a full picture of what are the assets, liabilities and transactions of the entity, rather than a compartmentalised one.

Most of the colleges have moved to consolidate those or were already doing so. Waterford Institute of Technology was different in that it maintained that there was complete independence between the subsidiaries and the institution, so it was not consolidating them. The risk was that there was something going on in the companies. We had no particular evidence that there was a problem. We felt consolidation would be good practice, particularly because of the amount of money that was being given.

It transpired afterwards, however, that there were guarantees and undertakings provided by the college to the companies. That certainly strengthened the case for ensuring they were consolidated. This was confirmed by Mr. Quigley in his report. Progress is being made. In the 2014 financial statements, we will able to see the full standing of the college on 31 August 2014.

On procurement, Mr. Ó Foghlú referred to the Institute of Technology, Tallaght and made a pointed remark that the education sector is the worst when it comes to non-compliance with procurement guidelines. Based on what he said, I am not going to say it is endemic or systemic. However, it seems to have got worse and seems to be a serious problem.

Notwithstanding what Mr. Ó Foghlú said about a rolling review, an issue has arisen in the education sector that seems to be getting slightly worse. This is a matter we have dealt with continually. I commented earlier that this committee is almost becoming desensitised to non-compliance in many respects. The subject arises so often at meetings, not only in respect of education but throughout the various Departments. The question has been answered, yet another meeting on this issue has been held today.

I will repeat the point I made earlier. Owing to the way financial reporting is done in the education sector, more of the institutions are coming to the attention of the committee. The HSE has a systemic problem; it is significant in that organisation. With regard to the list in front of the committee members, I have reported previously that there is non-competitive procurement of goods and services in the National College of Art and Design in the order of almost 100%. That is why there is no figure appearing in the document regarding that college. For the other colleges, I refer to the exceptions that have been found. I would not describe the problem as being systemic in the other colleges but it is significant.

That is fair enough. Professor Donnelly, there is a bigger subtext in respect of the current status of Waterford Institute of Technology. With regard to what we have been dealing with in respect of the institute, namely, regularising what seems to have taken place, we are at a point where we must move on, as the Controller and Auditor General is making clear. Financial systems and the health of the institute have been dealt with. Since the Comptroller and Auditor was there in April, he contributed an awful lot to that. We are at the point of moving on but the more significant subtext concerns the status of the merger with the institute in Carlow. That has always been the bigger issue. Could we have a status report on the merger? I understand it is in phase 2 and that it is expected that could be completed early next year.

I am on the record as saying the major challenge for the south east is the university for the south east. I have worked on this for 22 years. As people now know, we started a facilitation process involving ourselves and those concerned in Carlow. That has gone very well and we have a very good relationship with the president in Carlow. We are now at a stage where we can review the next phase in the development, which will be the engagement of the two governing bodies and, following that, the engagement of the executive. I am confident that the process is where it should be at this stage and that we should move forward in the right direction.

The next phase is vital. I would prefer not to give a timeline but to say we have to build the proper foundation. Things fell apart before because the foundation was not in place. The consequent recovery phase was pretty difficult for everybody. We do not want to go there again; we want to get it right and have a university of real quality for the region. That is what we are focusing on. It is best to ensure we get everything right and move forward rather than setting some unrealistic date on which everybody is focused rather than the process and the way we engage with one another.

Obviously, it is principally a matter for the two institutes but given the Government's priority in this area, we are supporting the engagement of the facilitator we discussed at the last meeting. In fact, the facilitator was chosen in light of her experience of facilitation. We are actually expanding the amount of facilitation to host a number of further meetings to assist in what Professor Donnelly has referred to. We are confident that the two institutes are working well together. The Minister committed additional funding of €2 million for next year to support all the technological institutes in consolidating in respect of applications for technological university status. The HEA is currently going through a process, using additional funding it has made available from within its own overall budget, to have applications from various higher education institutions that are seeking to move towards amalgamation. They are going through that process at present. We are making additional funding available towards supporting this and to help the Minister's assistants in expanding both the loan for the Carriganore sports complex and the timescale for the loan. This is also support for WIT-----

The Department's financial backing for these initiatives is an indication of its support. That is fair enough and clear.

Professor Donnelly's statement on the Chinese market was interesting. I acknowledge it is probably non-compliant; we will not go there. How did the officials get on? I realise the professor’s institute is not the only one that has considered the Chinese market and tried to attract Chinese students. Was the successful? Is the process ongoing?

It is ongoing. We were one of the first to enter that market. We have a good history in China. It is a very good market for us. We have many students from China. It is an important market, not only educationally but also economically. The educational and economic links are connected. It is a market that we prioritised and continue to prioritise and develop.

It is fair to say that both the Chairman and I have spoken about Waterford and Carlow institutes of technology outside these meetings. We have had a good few meetings in the past three or four years. The purpose of today’s meeting was really to draw a line under the issues that have dogged the institute in Waterford in the recent past. Apart from the issue concerning Mr. Byrne, it is fair to say, and there is agreement, that this has been achieved. For the first time, the direction that Waterford Institute of Technology is going financially with IT Carlow is extremely positive.

I wish to clear up a matter that concerns the Controller and Auditor General and audit committees. There was a point in my brief referring to the institute’s audit committee not issuing an annual report to the governing body until September 2014. That is the point I was trying to make.

There is a requirement in the code that the audit committee should report on its proceedings but it felt it was not in a position to do that and did not submit the report on the year 2012–13 until more than a year later. I believe the date was in September 2014. Obviously, there is reliance in the governance of an institution on the audit committee and, therefore, it is important that internal auditing processes and audit committees be functioning. The college has disclosed that this was a problem in the SIFC. I drew attention to it because it is a significant matter.

I thank everybody for their contributions on the institutes around the country. I am very conscious that the HEA manages a fund worth €2.5 billion. There are 170,000 students in higher education and over 17,000 staff. These figures have a bearing on growth in the economy. It is important that there be regional development and a connection with IDA Ireland. Last week, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, made a big announcement in IT, Sligo, on the potential for developing a high-tech company in conjunction with IDA Ireland.

I have no doubt but that, with a fund of €2.5 billion, 170,000 students and 17,000 staff, issues will arise.

With regard to footprints and reconfiguration, a similar debate to that with regard to the institutes of technology in Waterford and Carlow is taking place in Sligo with regard to the institute of technology there, along with Letterkenny IT and GMIT. What are the issues and challenges? How have the numerous protected disclosures been managed? It is hard to imagine there would not be issues given the scale of the funding and the number of staff and students.

The key outcome the Government and the Irish people should expect for an investment of €2.5 billion is that the higher education sector provides the skills and related competencies needed by the economy, the IDA and society more generally. In the past two years, we have introduced a very specific system for assessing the performance of the sector and the performance of individual institutions against stated national objectives. This strategic dialogue, or performance management, tool is very valuable to ensure the higher education sector delivers what it is supposed to deliver. In addition, we have a robust system of governance and accountability for the higher education sector. There is no dispute among the institutions or anybody else that all of the institutions are accountable to the Government through the HEA and the Department of Education and Skills for every cent they spend, and by and large the system of governance works well.

Deputy McDonald mentioned earlier that procurement is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, and in fairness I take issue with this. Procurement in any one year amounts to approximately €1 billion and, overwhelmingly, it is done properly. This is not in any way to excuse those instances in which it is not done properly, and there is zero tolerance of these types of departure from the norm, although putting it into practice can be somewhat difficult. By and large, there is a strong higher education system delivering what Ireland needs. It is well governed at institutional level and there is a good governance and accountability system in place. I have said before that no system of governance is exempt from human error, and it will happen. The particular job of the HEA is to ensure when it does happen that proper action is taken so it does not happen again.

There are 170,000 students in the system. Foreign direct investment is driven by the huge acclamation of the calibre of the students and graduates that we have. We also have SMEs in the Enterprise Ireland portfolio. Is there much collaboration? Sligo Institute of Technology works very closely with start-up companies through facilitation of low rent for accommodation. I have observed the recognition of the institutes of technology, their partnership with SMEs and their support for foreign direct investment. Is it fair to say much foreign direct investment is based on a very efficient institute facility. Sligo has several thousand students, and companies consider the calibre of the students with IT degrees or qualifications in forensic science. Is this the engine of growth for foreign direct investment? We have a regional development plan, but it is very much focused on the calibre of students. It is important to recognise the role of the HEA with regard to the institutes of technology. Do we have 19 institutes of technology?

A key requirement of the higher education system is to liaise closely with the economy, business and enterprise and, increasingly, institutions are doing so. This is without any dilution of the broader mission of education as we all understand it. It is very evident that a significant factor in attracting foreign direct investment to the country is the availability of skilled graduates. The institution in Sligo is a particularly good example of an institution that works very well locally and nationally in identifying skills needs.

Procurement was mentioned. How does the national procurement office work? There can be anomalies and there are always matters that are not correct. Given the amount of €2.5 billion and the number of purchasing managers in each college, is there much involvement with Mr. Quinn's office on procurement issues?

As I understand it, the purpose of the central procurement office is to centralise all procurement in the public sector in a single function in the interests of efficiency and getting value for money. The higher education system is ready to embrace this. The final i's have not been dotted and the t's have not been crossed, but it is a work in progress.

With regard to the 170,000 students in lifelong learning, the fact that people have gone back to education is very encouraging and it facilitates industry by allowing staff to qualify in institutes. What are the projections for future student intake and the future demands of industry?

The anticipation is that, even with the current level of participation in higher education, we will have an increase of around 25% in student numbers until approximately 2028 through demographic growth alone. It is very significant amount which consists just of school leavers, by and large. Another major piece to be delivered is upskilling people, both those who did not have an opportunity to go into education earlier and those whose skills are now redundant or need additional honing. This is a very important piece of the higher education system for the future. We already have the Springboard programme, which accommodates approximately 6,000 students and has proven to be very successful in getting unemployed people back to work by giving them more relevant skills. The issue of the relevance of what the higher education institutions are doing for the economy and society keeps coming up. People need high-quality relevant skills.

With regard to lifelong learning and investment by institutes of technology, how big an emphasis is there within the HEA on the capacity of the institutes of technology to deliver online courses for people who may not be able to attend on campus?

It must be part of the way in which we respond to the huge demand for higher education. The use of technology is a very important factor in the sustainability of the system. I do not ever envisage a situation in which courses can be delivered exclusively online, especially to undergraduate students. The more effective way of dealing with technology in education is through a blended system whereby technology is used. Without wishing to engage in plamás, Sligo is a leader in this particular space.

With regard to Carriganore, a statutory inspector was appointed to investigate issues at Waterford Institute of Technology. It appears the HEA has adhered fully to the recommendations in the report. Is this correct?

No, it was due to the fact that, under the legislation governing the institutes of technology, an institute may borrow only in accordance with the framework that is agreed between the Higher Education Authority, the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Finance. No such framework is in place.

Will Mr. Ó Foghlú comment on this because it is an important point? If there is an appeal to the Department in such cases, does the Minister have discretion in the matter? We are talking in this instance about a situation where a cost-benefit analysis and due diligence were done but it ended up with contracts having to be cancelled and new ones drawn up. It is important to know what happened because the institute might be blamed for it. In fact, Waterford Institute of Technology did not have the power to borrow the moneys needed. I am asking whether, if those funds were available, the Department could have intervened to provide them?

If we did intervene and the intervention we made was to start an investigation because we did not have sufficient information about the indebtedness of the company, that is a very serious matter. The investigation was undertaken on our behalf and the Minister then made a call to make a loan facility available, which has not been made available to anybody else, for both the student accommodation and the Carriganore campus.

The investigation found many anomalies, which is why the recommendations coming out of it have been very detailed, as Mr. Boland said. We have sought to implement the recommendations relevant to us and, as Professor Donnelly detailed, Waterford Institute of Technology has sought to implement the recommendations it was given. We intend to have a follow-up on the investigation in the new year which will involve sending Mr. Quigley back to double check that implementation has been completed in the institute.

It is important to note that the institute did not have the facility to borrow.

Without wishing to be too parochial, I have a question regarding St. Angela's College in Sligo. It is the only school of home economics in the country and is now part of the institute of technology campus along with the school of nursing. There is an issue there whereby a capital project was approved in 2011 but was subsequently shelved. I am aware that many other projects have since been approved. There is a health and safety aspect involved here in that there is no access for wheelchair users from one facility to the next. What is the status of that project, with particular reference to the accessibility issue?

I will not be able to give the Deputy chapter and verse today but I can find out for him. I am aware St. Angela's College has made an application for funding for certain works, some of them relating to health and safety issues. The difficulty is that it is not alone in the sector and there is a large number of capital works projects that could be done if funding was available. I am sure the committee understands that funding is very limited. I am aware this particular project is one of those being considered by the HEA.

The point I wish to emphasise is that these works were included in a list of approved projects in 2011. I understand all the other projects on that list have either commenced or been completed and other projects have been undertaken which do not have the same level of priority. The shelf life of the St. Angela's College project dates back to 2009 or 2010. Does the HEA or the Department have the final say in this matter?

We have not had extensive higher education capital funding available in recent years and there has not been a wide range of commitments made on capital for new buildings in the sector. In fact, a moratorium was in place, although it was partly lifted in exceptional circumstances. No other project that was paused or stop has been recommenced. In the six-year Government plan for capital spending, there is some €300 million available for higher education, €200 million of which is for public private partnerships, PPPs. In other words, there is very limited funding for projects outside of PPPs. We will be consulting with the HEA on the prioritisation of projects. As I said, we are very challenged on higher education capital funding.

The project in question has a cost of €3.5 million and is intended to address an issue of health and safety. It is unacceptable in the 21st century to have a building that is not accessible to students who use wheelchairs. It does not involve constructing a new building but linking one campus to another. I hope the delegates will do their best to advance it.

As I understand it, the report was from Waterford Institute of Technology to the HEA and it drew on a report from Deloitte. I am somewhat at a disadvantage here because I do not have the detail of the report in front of me.

Does that in any way give rise to a conflict of interest? Surely Deloitte should have been the last company to be chosen because, presumably, it was getting fees elsewhere from Waterford Institute of Technology?

The document I have in front of me is headed "Expenditure Incurred by the Office of the President". It strikes me that Deloitte, because it was not independent, should not have been tasked with producing that report.

I doubt that the witness would. It strikes me as an unusual way to operate. It certainly would not be acceptable now. In the report from Deloitte, despite the fact that perhaps Deloitte was the wrong group to do it, was there any suggestion, with regard to the president's expenditure, that there was any expenditure incurred in the president's office that was for purposes other than those of the institute?

The core issue was the amount of items that went through the president's account. There appeared to be a huge range of items that went through that account. It is the basis of a legal issue at present. We, as an institute, from what I can see from reading the data around it, separated those items into which were items for the institute and which perhaps should have been in another account, items which were for duties carried out as the president under his own account and a smaller number of other items. We did an examination of the expenses which also highlighted expenses that were not necessarily for institute business purposes and others for which it was seen there may have been personal benefit. It was only on these latter categories that the actions initiated by the institute were grounded, that is, the institute sought repayment for those items.

No. I am sorry, but it is part of an ongoing discussion with the former president in which we sought clarification. In fairness to the president, we should continue with that ongoing discussion. Just to clarify, out of all of the items a number of items are open to query. There is a request to the president either to clarify or reimburse the institute for those items. That is reasonable.

There were two Deloitte reports and the second one went into more detail and was forwarded to the Committee of Public Accounts on 12 February 2013. There are two Deloitte reports and the action Professor Donnelly is discussing arises from a conflation of the issues in the two reports.

In the combination of the two Deloitte reports there are a number of matters, which also were identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports, where there are question marks over the expenditure and WIT has initiated action with the former president about those.

Yes. WIT took a subsequent overview of all of the expenses. After the two reports it received, it conducted its own analysis and came to its own conclusions building on the two reports. We would have to get the two reports and write back to the Deputy. However, the overall conclusion by WIT, not in Professor Donnelly's time as president, was that having received the two Deloitte reports it completed its own analysis, having regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General's work as well, and has sought reimbursement. It has initiated action in respect of reimbursement, or correspondence between solicitors as it might not be action, to have a dialogue about some of that expenditure being clarified or refunded. That is where the issue stands now.

I wish to return to this report, because I have been listening to how it is being described, and the timing of it. I understand that there is correspondence, as Mr. Ó Foghlú said, to clarify certain matters of expenditure. The report here is a report to the HEA requested by the HEA. It was prepared in response to a request from Mr. Boland and it refers to the recent media reports. That appears to be its purpose. The report deals mainly with everything that was in question at Committee of Public Accounts meetings relative to the cost centre referred to as the president's office. It refers to the fact that it implied that €3 million formed part of the expenditure of the office, and says that was misleading. It makes other remarks that would discredit the original report that this was a spend that was way above the norm for an individual in an organisation, the president. This report discredits what was said previously. It says "No" and lays it all out. It states clearly that at no stage did Deloitte or the governing body suggest that any expenditure incurred in the president's office was for a purpose other than the institute's. Either the past statements were incorrect or this statement is incorrect.

I know we have moved on, but our task is to look at the accounts, the audit and the evidence before us and decide how best we can improve circumstances as we proceed. I am a little shocked, Mr. Boland, having looked at this report. Regardless of how long ago it was, and it is easy to dismiss it by saying it was four years ago, it is a topic we are dealing with at this meeting and it is part of the evidence and paperwork around that topic. It deals with the credibility or otherwise of an individual who was employed there. That is very important. It is important that whatever might have been there previously, if the record must be corrected it should be corrected. You should know your business. After all, your organisation is responsible for the oversight of WIT and the others. It is a little odd that you expect us to dismiss it on the basis of, "It is a legal matter", "I cannot remember" or "It is a long time ago", because all of the other bigger figures were remembered.

It is a request to the Waterford Institute of Technology. That is not one person. Given the finer detail in the report, it would appear that the person who wrote it had access to a lot of the finer detail and was willing to comment on it. Given that a meeting came afterwards in Kilkenny, according to Deputy McDonald, and given the outcome as regards the then president's position, this report is significant. I would like to find out who actually penned this report and to whom it was presented. It would be helpful to know if, during the writing of the report or thereafter, it was discussed with Mr. Boland.

We take it that the purpose of the meeting was as Mr. Boland outlined in the presentation here on 10 October 2013. Mr. Neavyn was president and now works for the HEA. Is the institute still paying him?

In November 2014 a representative of the president contacted the Department and indicated that the president would be interested in moving from his role. Following discussions in March 2015, the governing body of WIT agreed to a request from the Department for the secondment of Dr. Neavyn as an adviser on the development of the technological sector in the HEA. At the last meeting, we discussed the fact that we were working through the payment for that. The HEA has come to an arrangement with WIT regarding the recruitment of Dr. Neavyn and his salary for the period of the secondment so there is no cost on WIT for the secondment. I have the specification of his role here.

If there was a skillset that was not represented within the HEA, surely the latter would have actively dealt with this to find a professionally-qualified person to fill the vacancy. What obligation is there to give a job to someone who does not want to fulfil his or her contract?

He indicated he would be interested in moving from the role. We felt that it would be helpful for the development of WIT and it was very important and helpful for him to find a role. The HEA has been seeking additional staff from the Department and it was helpful-----

We have had continuous dialogue with the HEA about developing a refined skillset. We have made arrangements, with the assistance of the HEA, whereby the HEA has seconded in expertise from the technological sector and, as far as I am aware, from the university sector because it does not necessarily have the skill base internally. The higher education strategy sought for it to diversify the skill base it has.

So Mr. Ó Foghlú explained to Mr. Boland that he had this wonderful solution to a skillset which the HEA lacked. Mr. Boland, through the Department, employed Mr. Neavyn but to this day his salary is not being paid by the Department or the HEA.

We had one arrangement, until the person's retirement, with the Dublin Institute of Technology where we bought out some of the time of one senior member of staff and she was effectively seconded for part of our time. The objective, as the Secretary General has said, is to bring expertise, particularly of a policy kind and in terms of institutional knowledge, into the HEA that we simply would not have normally.

Returning to Carriganore and the current position, we are trying to establish the figures in relation to the completion of that project. Perhaps Mr. Ó Foghlú would confirm again the amount of money allocated by the Department to that project.

Yes, by way of loan. The Manor Village project was estimated to cost €7.5 million but that cost was reduced through negotiations by WIT such that the loan required in respect of the purchase was €7.1 million, which left €2.9 million available to complete phase 3. Following discussions between the Department and WIT, we agreed to provide an additional €2.1 million. I think WIT also has additional funding of €200,000 available to it from another source.

It is being funded by us. We had agreed to fund the €2.5 million plus the €400,000, which is €2.9 million in total, and we also agreed to an additional allocation of €2.1 million. There is also other funding available to WIT.

In regard to CIT, Deputy McDonald referred to correspondence from a number of unnamed sources in which questions are raised in respect of the college. One such question relates to the cleaning staff. I recently tabled a parliamentary question on this matter and was told that matter has been resolved. Is that correct?

It was raised in September-October 2014 by the two unions representing the cleaning staff. We then engaged with the unions. Those negotiations are finalised and, at the request of the unions, payment will be made early in 2016.

Another question relates to health and safety funds. In 2014, €1 million in funding for health and safety works was made available. I presume schools could apply for that funding to the Department of Education and Skills. Is that correct?

Is it true that in March 2015 the HSE inspector informed CIT that some of the areas for storing chemicals and so on were no longer to be used as work stations and that flammable chemicals had been left sitting next to explosive chemicals in a store unit? These are the issues that have been raised with the committee. Given that CIT made €1 million available, it would appear from the photographs provided that there is a loose arrangement in place in respect of these matters.

There are two matters arising, including the overall storage and disposal of chemicals. The matter regarding the work station relates to a specific laboratory and the standard operating procedures there for chemical storage, use and disposal. When the matter was raised, we commissioned an internal review of the system of ordering, use, storage and disposal of chemicals. We have acted on that review.

Has the issue raised by the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, in its letter to CIT of 27 November 2014 - which refers to a situation where an employer has knowingly created and allowed a situation to continue where employees are exposed to health and safety and fire hazards and waste from both the biology and chemistry laboratories, as well as a corridor, is allowed to build up within the store area close to the employee's work station - been dealt with?

The correspondence received by the committee, dated 20 September 2015, questions that. It states that €50,000 was allocated but a lot more was needed. We will forward this letter to Dr. Murphy for a more comprehensive response.

I wish to raise the issue of the members of staff employed by CIT who took the college to the Labour Relations Commission, LRC. According to a complaint sent to this committee, a ruling was given but the institute has not yet acted on it. I raise this issue because of correspondence received by this committee.

What the Chairman describes leaves me at a loss because it is quite a general statement. Various issues are taken to the Labour Relations Commission or the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, as it is now called. The only issue that I can think of concerned timetabling at CIT which is being dealt with.

The other issue I want to raise relates to this redacted report. I accept what Dr. Murphy said in his opening statement regarding personal details. Who set out the detail of how that report was to be prepared? Who set out the criteria for that report?

The audit committee commissioned that report. It set out, with the assistance of independent legal advisers, Arthur Cox, the details of what was required in the report. The terms of reference were set out by the audit committee.

As I understand it from the redacted document we have, certain allegations were made about individuals. Is that correct? Were those individuals interviewed? I ask Dr. Murphy to talk us through how the report was prepared.

It would depend on the nature of the allegation. KPMG adopted a phased approach. It was asked to do certain things in the first phase and then, depending on the outcome of that, the option was there to proceed to additional phases, if necessary. The audit committee did this in an effort to retain control over the cost of the exercise. There were a number of allegations pertaining to interview processes. We made the specific interview files and selection board reports available, as well as any documentation that would have gone to the governing body. We also provided the minutes of governing body meetings where appointments would have been made. It is my understanding that on the basis of that information, KPMG was satisfied that the allegations were unfounded.

I know that KPMG met a number of individuals who would have been responsible overall for particular areas and that it spent time with those individuals going through the various allegations in their areas of responsibility.

No. The audit committee asked O'Flynn Exhams Solicitors for its advice and operating on that advice and the committee then proceeded, with the authority of the governing body, to seek independent legal advice.

I wish to move on to oversight on the part of the Department of Education and Skills. Did the institute have much communication with the Department or the HEA as it worked through the different allegations?

We gave regular updates to the Department, the HEA and the Comptroller and Auditor General on the process. The governing body was also briefed regularly by the chair of the audit committee as to the progress of the investigations. We supplied full copies of the report to the Department, the HEA and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

My next question is for Ms Sheridan. Does the institute partner with private companies in terms of research? Does it collaborate with the private sector in any way? Is that part of what the institute does?

I should answer that because I was formerly vice president of research for the institute. We have had more than 210 partnerships in the past five years with companies which were funded in various ways. Some were funded jointly with Enterprise Ireland, others were funded privately by the companies themselves and some were funded through Science Foundation Ireland, SFI. There are a number of different ways in which we can partner with companies and develop research for them.

I am trying to determine how tied in the institute is with the companies in the context of success. If those companies are successful on the back of the assistance of the institute, is there any windfall accruing to the institute?

It very much depends. There are national guidelines in this regard but it really depends on where the intellectual property originated and the percentage of investment the company put into the particular project. Another factor is the ability of the institute to leverage any additional funding from the work. There is a scale involved. The most important point, however, is that we are part of a national programme, the technology transfer programme, for which guidelines are given nationally. We apply those national guidelines.

FeedHenry was a campus company. The standard is that with such companies, the institute receives 15% of the equity if it transfers the IP to the company. That is before external investment, which will see the equity decrease, depending on the-----

No, they come from the IP that is generated by the research, which is carried out to Science Foundation Ireland or Enterprise Ireland standards. There are very clear rules in terms of who has ownership of the IP and who can start a campus company. In general, they are started by staff involved in research, whether in the universities or in the institutes of technology.

Yes, but one must take into account that there had been two rounds of EU investment. The institute's equity in the company at that stage was 4% or thereabouts. As such, we would have got some 4% of the moneys.

I have a question for Mr. Ó Foghlú on an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions in the Dáil in recent days, namely, the proposal to establish an education ombudsman. Deputy Jim Daly raised it on the Order of Business this week. Since then, we found out that the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015, which is the vehicle under which the proposal was made, probably will not be taken before the election. What is the Department's view on having an education ombudsman? Is there a general feeling about what Deputy Daly is proposing? All Deputies have encountered cases similar to those to which the Deputy referred, touching on issues of accountability versus unaccountability. Is there a view forming in the Department in this regard?

Deputy Jim Daly came to see me on more than one occasion to talk through his emerging concept and ask us where policy development was at in this regard. We had that discussion a couple of months ago. As it stands, we already have an Ombudsman for Children. Deputy Daly's proposal, as far as I understand it, is made up of two parts. The first is that he sees an ombudsman for education being active in giving policy advice. The second function he envisages is not so much an ombudsman function as an appeals board function to allow for the making of determining decisions, which ombudsmen typically do not do. We talked through those concepts with the Deputy, as I said.

The Government is advancing the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015 but, as the Minister indicated earlier this week, it is highly unlikely that it will be passed before the end of the current Oireachtas term. In the admissions area, we wish to put in place enhanced regulation both in terms of the time applications are made to schools, which would provide clarity for everybody, and in respect of what might or might not be included in enrolment policy. That, in essence, is what is involved in the legislation. The Minister has signalled her view that there is a need to review the Equal Status Act provisions around denominational education. The Bill has been published but not discussed in the Houses, so it is technically on First Stage. The Minister has indicated that it was her intention to introduce amendments to provide for a parents' and students' charter, which, together with the new arrangements around enrolment, should remove enrolment to a significant extent from any necessary appeals mechanisms.

We would like to advance those initiatives and analyse their impact without putting a straight appeals mechanism in place which would have a determining say in schools' enrolment policies. That is the issue we are focusing on in our emerging discussion with Deputy Daly. We hope the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill will be taken in the next Oireachtas, in which case there will be further opportunities to consider the concept Deputy Daly has proposed.

In a different way, we are seeking to have these sorts of issues addressed in the first instance via the cultural aspect, with a view to ensuring schools are more responsive and transparent in their communities, with an opportunity also for appeals mechanisms. To be fair to Deputy Jim Daly, he said in his discussions with us that he would prefer to advance his own concept while that is happening. I do not think I am breaching any confidences in saying that, because the Deputy is very open to discussion.

Up to this academic year, we did not. However, in the context of industrial action by the Teachers Union of Ireland, under which it basically instructed its members to engage in no overtime whatsoever, there have been a number of cases in which, because of the specialised nature of the expertise being sought and the difficulty of operating at short notice - TUI does not issue such instructions until the beginning of the academic year - we have had occasion to look to retired staff. A note I have in front of me says that four lecturers who were retired have been brought back on a part-time basis, which means they are paid an hourly rate and are limited to a maximum of four hours per week. We have applied to the Higher Education Authority for permission to do this. It is not an ideal situation but relates specifically to areas where the required specialisation was not in ready supply and the academic semester had commenced. In the context of ensuring the delivery of the service to students, that was the decision we took.

They involved people's time in ensuring there were copies of documentation, and the committee requested extensive documentation in recent days. Somebody must collate this and send it off. Even if it is electronic, it still must be collated, sent off and reviewed. A number of people are engaged in this.

A characteristic of some of these allegations is they are so vague we sometimes guess what is the basis of them. The National Maritime College of Ireland is part of CIT. It is one of the third level public private partnerships. It was built to provide training and education for the merchant marine and Naval Service.

That could be the gross value. To put matters in perspective, we have approximately 14,000 fixed assets and describing them as fixed in some cases is a bit of a misnomer. They are anything but, which is part of the reason it is difficult to ensure. As the Comptroller and Auditor General notes, having looked at the audit committee reports, it is a regular feature of his review with regard to ensuring we control our assets and keep track of them. There are certain assets we do not track, such as plastic chairs, of which most higher educational institutions have a considerable number. If we were to say a plastic chair is €30 and we have several thousand of them, it looks like a large amount of money.

We think where this may have arisen is that following an internal audit review in 2013, we changed the way we manage our fixed asset audits. Previously we did it through the summer, and criticism was expressed that there was not enough time to complete the audits, so quite often one year ran into the next. In 2014, we implemented a new system whereby we have continual rolling audits in each department. We also centrally carry out an audit, but this is limited to items which are more than €5,000 in value bought since 1 January 2008. I believe where the allegation came from was the gap between these two. There is a certain element of central audit which we do not undertake. We have devolved it to the academic and functional departments.

The figure came out of the KPMG report and it is the value of the assets not subject to central audit. We have continual rolling audits. We also have an external audit. We engage another company to do spot checks on these assets.

Great. With regard to the Munster university, has anybody set out the cost for Waterford, Carlow, Tralee and Cork? Is there a forecast of the total cost relative to each? Does Mr. Boland have any idea of this question?

We will see if we can get a precise figure, but each of the stage 2 and stage 3 plans presented with regard to DIT and Munster set out an estimate of what the costs are likely to be. I estimate the figure is in the order of €30 million or €35 million if my memory serves me.

Two different firms. Our PR firm is Kearney Melia Communications. Unfortunately, the second partner in the firm died quite recently. In terms of the technological university, we have conducted, in agreement with IT Tralee, another competitive tender and appointed Communications Clinic.

Yes, and of the former chairman of the governing body. We have a tradition. There are paintings of all my predecessors in the council room. This is quite a normal tradition in several higher education institutions.

If it were Dunnes Stores, for example, every unit would be reporting to a single administrative section. Otherwise, how would one know what is going on all over the place? Not knowing is the problem. With respect, the HEA does not know what is going on all over the place. It has a general view on it but it should be borne in mind that the specific amounts of money being used, in light of the numbers of complaints or allegations we have received, is significant. Both the Department and HEA should be carrying out a more in-depth analysis of where the money is going and how it is being spent. That analysis is a good management tool. Does Mr. Gallagher agree?

It is worth clarifying the purpose of internal auditing vis-à-visexternal auditing. There is a rather good system in the institutes that is centrally managed. A number of projects are undertaken centrally and the results of those are shared with the sector. The results of all the projects that are undertaken at a local level are disseminated also.

With regard to the HEA, we do report through our governance statements, and the results of those internal audits, if they are material, will be included there. Also, in terms of external audits and the review of the financial accounts, the HEA does quite a bit of drilling down and analysis. That is extremely useful and the results are disseminated to the sector. It is useful for me to consider other colleges and ask whether their figures are out of kilter by comparison with ours.

I want to bring to the attention of Mr. Ó Foghlú a matter concerning the audit of the VECs. There is further correspondence on this that arrived only today but it will be sent to Mr. Ó Foghlú. He might give us his view on it. Separate from that, I have had a discussion with someone involved and have to say that the manner in which he is being treated seems extremely unfair. Consequent to his desire to improve things and bring forward suggestions, he is being penalised and sidelined in relation to the audit. This type of practice was raised by Deputy McDonald earlier in respect of the Central Bank. While the individual to whom I am referring is not a whistleblower, he is very concerned about the job. In light of this, it is extremely important that whoever is responsible send out a clear message that what is occurring will not be tolerated and that someone bringing forward positive suggestions for improvements should, at least, have those suggestions examined and be treated in a way one would expect. Very deep concern has been expressed to me over this. It is a matter I will raise again. I wish to bring it to the attention of Mr. Ó Foghlú today.

The culture the Chairman referred to is exactly the sort of culture we are seeking to bring about. I refer to a culture of transparency within institutions so issues can be raised and addressed. Obviously, the internal audit work and so on should be appropriately managed, and concerns should be listened to appropriately.

The value of that has to be tested. The experience to date is that anyone who has tried it has had a very negative outcome. They are still reeling from the manner in which they were treated and the fact that they expected more. I am not talking about the Department of Education and Skills in this instance. However, when someone has raised concerns and feels excluded in this way, I find it shocking. It should be dealt with. I am going to meet the individuals concerned and, if necessary, I will come directly to Mr. Ó Foghlú. This needs to be rooted out of any organisation which has had that experience.

I thank the witnesses for attending. The committee will not dispose of the 2014 financial statements of Cork Institute of Technology and 2013 financial statements of Waterford Institute of Technology until we decide what to do with them.